A religious skeptic's view of the world

Not only am I a non-theist (or atheist) but can also characterize myself as a realist. The pre-modern definition of philosophical skepticism included doubt about the existence of external reality, but that is not generally what modern skepticism is about, nor is it what I am about. I accept that the world is pretty much like our senses, and our science shows it. To give it a name, I am a Philosophical Naturalist - I think that the observable universe is all there is, and is all that we need to concern ourselves with. Regarding how we come to know the world and ourselves (my epistemology), everything we know comes from outside through our senses and inside from our minds. There is no special revelation from supernatural entities. The real world exists, and although we may be constrained in our ability to experience it by our limited senses and minds, it is out there, and we are in it. What we see and know of the universe may only be an an approximation of reality, but every new observation brings us closer to understanding it. And that journey towards greater understanding has not come from religion or mythology, but from observation, experiment, and theory. If there is anything else that is knowable, it will probably come about as a direct result of the continued investigations of mathematics and the sciences. Already they have shown us a universe trillions of times larger and infinitely more intricate than anything conceived of by the religions and myths of pre-scientific societies.

Do things exist which aren't material - yes, of course. It really depends on what we mean by the word, "exist", which is probably too weak and non-specific a word to encompass what is we refer to when we say it. Frequently "existence" is applied both to material objects and to non-material entities: processes, flows, relationships, behaviors, evolution, and other dynamic aspects of complex (i.e., more than one object involved) systems. Obviously, emotions and feelings "exist". We humans (and probably other animals) clearly have inner lives. Love, hate, loyalty, treachery, and all the other human emotions "exist", but more in the sense of how relationships or processes exist. There are no emotional "atoms" that can be weighed and measured. But it is probable (neuroscience and evolutionary biology are very close to showing this) that the human emotions that give us reasons to keep on living are outgrowths of very physical processes in the brain. That doesn't make them any less important, just as knowing how a rainbow, opera, flower, or sonnet works doesn't make them any less beautiful. To those who would say, "if you can accept that love and loyality exist though you can't hold them in your hand, then why can you not also accept god?". The answer is that unlike love and loyalty, there is no evidence of a god, no reason to believe in a god, any more than there is a reason to believe in the infinity of other concepts that can be thought of which also don't exist. Knowing that a few immaterial "things" exist (emotion, change, the future, the past) is no argument for thinking every immaterial thing exists. Each requires its own rationale and reason for deserving our belief.

Material objects (including ourselves) are in the world. Those objects interact - they have relationships to each other and influence each other. Processes and phenomena occur, objects change internally and with respect to each other through time. Because of our cognitive apparatus, we create models of both the objects of the world, their relationships, and how both of these evolve through time. We see the universe work as it does, and build intricate mathematical and logical systems that correspond to the world.

"Embodied mind" theories hold that mathematical and logical thought is a natural outgrowth of the human cognitive apparatus which finds itself in our physical universe. For example, the abstract concept of number springs from the experience of living in a world where there are discrete objects that can be counted. I feel quite certain that if the universe did not have this feature (separate objects), that the theory of number would probably not have come about. Although it is not the dominant theory, I think that logical systems are a result of the human propensity to create mental models of their experiences. We construct, but do not discover, mathematics. Embodied mind theorists explain the effectiveness of mathematics by arguing that mathematics was constructed by the brain in order to be effective in this universe. It is part of our natural "model making" cognitive functioning. With this view, the physical universe can thus be seen as the ultimate foundation of mathematics: it guided the evolution of the brain and later determined which questions this brain would find worthy of investigation.

Regarding "laws of nature", I group them together with mathematical and logical objects. The "laws of nature" and do not cause the universe to be as it is. The universe is already as it is, and the laws are our human attempt to organize these experiences in ways that we can describe them, explain them, and predict them. An apple doesn't fall from the tree because Newton came up with the formulas for gravitational attraction, the formulas describe (and predict) how objects fall, and how they will fall in the future.

I am not a reductionist, in the sense that I don't think all behaviors can ultimately be reduced to their lowest common denominator (physical laws). The ultimate in reductionism would be to claim that quantum theory should eventually be able to explain not only how subatomic particles behave, but how atoms and molecules form, now cells come into being, now animals work, and finally how humans and human societies work. No, I am an "emergentist". I think behaviors spontaneously emerge as complexity increases. The characteristics of water (its wetness, its freezing point, boiling point, and chemical properties) spontaneously emerge as water molecules form from hydrogen and oxygen. We cannot "average" the characteristics of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom to predicts what their chemical combination (H2O) will be like. The properties of water emerge as water (a more complex thing) is built from oxygen and hydrogen (less complex things). As molecules form, organic compounds are created, life emerges, intelligence evolves, and civilizations are born and die, new properties and behaviors spring into existence with each change in structure and complexity. The ultimate in complex properties - consciousness, intelligence, and human culture, exist in ourselves and our civilizations.

Instead of god...

Reading the above chapters should make it clear that I don't have any faith or belief in an external, omniscient, all powerful, anthropomorphic god. I also see any figurative characterizations of god as being a state of mind, or all around us, or inside us, or beyond human comprehension, as poetic exercises, not statements of how things actually are.

We have all heard versions of the aphorism, "people believe what they want to believe". That statement is cynical, but not completely false. What people want, what they value, does influence what they choose to believe, and I am no exception. Ultimately most of us center our beliefs on something that, to varying degrees, satisfies and harmonizes with those values and desires. Some people crave salvation, so they seek a god who can save them. Some want inner peace, so they are attracted to a religion that can help them achieve that. Some desire community, so the social aspect of religion is what they focus on. Some value tradition and ritual, and there are plenty of religions that offer those. Many people want certainty and removal of doubt, so they look for an authoritative god who tells them "the answer". Others seek enlightenment, so they practice meditation and transcendence exercises. What people want guides their very rational search for a god that works for them. As Hume said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions". We use reason and logic as tools to help us achieve what we already want. This doesn't mean that logic is arbitrary or relative, but it does mean that without a starting point of desire, logic can't motivate or move us to action or decision.

So, what do I value, what do I want? I don't care about salvation - I never think about it. And I know it sounds crass, but I also don't really care about maximizing my inner peace - I'm suppose I'm basically at an "OK" peace level, neither too anxious nor too relaxed. Sure, I would like to be happier, but I don't want to be "blissed out", and I don't think a god is going to make me happy, anyway. How about the welfare of others and making the world a better place? Of course, who doesn't want that? But to judge by my actions, I sure don't put much effort into it - no more than most, and less than many, I suppose. What I want, and what I value (as far as god-focused thoughts go) is to believe true things, and to disbelieve false things. I want to stay firmly footed in reality. It matters to me that my beliefs have a high correspondence to what actually exists and not refer to imaginary entities. I don't like being hoodwinked. In other words, I am a hard core Realist. Given that, I have considered and rejected the arguments for god's existence, which include these and many others:

• The argument from design is primitive and childish.
• God of the gaps is an embarrassing failure of ignorance.
• Arguments from personal revelation are unbelievable, contradictory, and weak.
• Appeal to consequences arguments are self-serving and irrational.
• There is no need for a god to define values and morality. Plato's "Euthyphro" dialog showed how we know morality without a god showing it to us.
• God as a creator of the universe begs the question, "who created god?". If one is comfortable with "he has always existed" or "he created himself, ex nihilo", I have three responses:
  1. How could you claim to know how God came into being? No one knows this! You may have faith in an ancient story about god and creation, but that is all.
  2. If you are comfortable postulating an entity that either springs into existence itself, or which can create itself, then let's just take god out of the equation and say that one of those methods is how the universe was created. Reduce the number of unexplained creations events by one.
  3. In fact, we don't know exactly how the universe came into being. Of those things we don't know, we are wiser to admit our ignorance rather than invent wild religious claims and "just-so" stories to explain them.
  God as creator is a useless, redundant, and unhelpful concept.

Do I know for a fact, with utter certainty that there is no god? Of course not. For entities of the type people refer to as god, "you can't prove a negative". We can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, we can't prove alien abductions don't occur, we can't prove there are no fairies in my garden, we can't prove Russell's teapot is not orbiting the Sun. However, using induction and "inference to best explanation", I have chosen among the available set of possible explanations for my experience in the world, and god is not part of it. The most economical (i.e., parsimonious) explanation, the one requiring the creation of the fewest entities, is that we live in a naturalistic universe, and that the observable universe is all there is. Of course I understand that there is dark energy, dark matter, etc, etc. Depending on your definition of "observable", you can't really see these things. But we know they exist because we see their impact and how they interact with the rest of the universe. But god didn't show us those things - we found them ourselves without a god's help. As I wrote in the chapter on Atheism:

For all past generations no clear evidence [for god] has been presented (short of personal testimony, questionable documentation, and muddled reports of miracles). We have no reason to anticipate any new compelling evidence is forthcoming anytime soon. Therefore, we are probably justified in inferring that god probably doesn't exist.

...To paraphrase from Stephen Jay Gould's description of scientific facts, atheists can't have "absolute certainty" of god's non-existence. They can only say that it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

If I had to commit right here, right now, I would confidently go with the "doesn't exist" option.

I am keenly aware that god's domain of influence is systematically being whittled away as we learn more about how the world actually works, rather than relying on how we wish it worked. Centuries ago, he was credited with practically everything - births, deaths, miracles, floods, good and bad harvests, etc, etc. Every time that religious apologists have been sacked behind their scrimmage line, they cede the lost territory, and simply move the goal post further back, claiming more and more esoteric ground for their god. The few remaining areas in which they claim god's influence is unarguably dominant are consciousness, morality, life, the creation of the universe, natural laws, life after death, and the like. But as we have seen, even those formerly impregnable mysteries are being unraveled by scientific investigation. If the past is any predictor of the future, many of these will also fall by the wayside as the human mind whittles away at those riddles. I have very little doubt that whatever most people intend when they envision some kind of external deity is riddled with ill-formed concepts, the kind of misconceptions which fuel Ignosticism.

So, I don't need a god. I don't need to invent one (or more than one) to balance my life and peace of mind. I am comfortable knowing that there is no master plan, and that it is not true that "everything happens for a reason". So, what do I believe? I believe that any meaning or significance that comes into our lives enters through our relationships, our inner lives, and how we interact with the world we live in. Our purpose, and "why we are here" is all an inner issue. There is no externally imposed purpose.

Humans use god as a metaphor, a cognitive and cultural symbol and tool for coping with our individual thoughts, and for helping our societies and cultures bind and work efficiently. Across all cultures, the mind slips naturally to an anthropomorphic god who cares about us, thinks like us, but is more powerful than us in all ways. We appear to need a heavenly parent figure to fill the psychological void left by the demotion of our real parents to mere humans as our minds develop and experiences show them to not be super-human. An external god does not exist, but the idea of it certainly does exist in individuals and groups.

So, how to respond to those who think this results in a meaningless and purposeless universe? My answer: You create your own meaning. Many people believe that meaning comes from outside, or that there is some external standard or set of goals that is created for them (religious, material, experiential, political). But ultimately, individuals decide which of these or other goals and aims they will integrate into their lives.

As Paul Kurtz wrote in his book "Affirmations" (you can watch him read this section at Paul Kurtz video.

The meaning of life is not to be found in secret formulas discovered by ancient prophets or modern gurus who withdraw from living to seek quiet contemplation and release. Life has no meaning per se; it does, however, present us with innumerable opportunities, which we can either squander and retreat from in fear or seize with exuberance. These can be discovered by anyone and everyone who can energize an inborn zest for living. They are found within living itself, as it reaches out to create new conditions for experience.

Eating of the fruit of the tree of life gives up the bountiful enthusiams for living. The ultimate value is the conviction that life can be found good in and of itself. Each moment has a kind of preciousness and attractiveness. The so-called secret of life is an open scenario that can be deciphered by everyone. It is found in the experiences of living: in the delights of a fine banquet, the strenuous exertion of hard work, the poignant melodies of a symphony, the appreciation of an altruistic deed, the excitement of an embrace from someone you love, the elegance of a mathematical proof, the invigorating adventure of a mountain climb, the satisfaction of quiet relaxation, the lusty singing of an anthem, the vigorous cheering in a sports contest, the reading of a delicate sonnet, the joys of parenthood, the pleasure of friendship, the quiet gratification of serving our fellow human beings—in all these activities and more.

It is in the present moment of experience as it is brought to fruition, as well as in the delicate memories of past experiences and the expectations of future ones, that the richness of life is exemplified and realized. The meaning of life is that it can be found to be good and beautiful and exciting on its own terms for ourselves, our loved ones, and other sentient beings. It is found in the satisfaction intrinsic to creative activities, wisdom, and righteousness.

One doesn’t need more than that, and we hope that one will not settle for less. The meaning of life is tied up intimately with our plans and projects, the goals we set for ourselves, our dreams, and the successful achievement of them. We create our own conscious meanings; we invest the cultural and natural worlds with our own interpretations. We discover, impose upon, and add to nature.

Clearly, Kurtz uses the word "meaning" in a different way than one uses it when discussing the meaning (or definition) of a word as you would find in a dictionary. Nor is it the type of meaning that a phrase or sentence has when it is spoken or interpreted. It isn't the type of meaning found in a poem, story, or novel. If one interprets the question, "what is the meaning of life?" using one of these forms of "meaning", then the question doesn't even make sense. Life cannot be looked up in dictionary or in some instruction manual. It would be futile to expect an answer to the question using that form of "meaning". What type of answer would even be constitute a satisfactory response? Before attempting to answer that kind of question, I would challenge the questioner to come up with a useful answer to "what does a stone mean?" or "what does an ant mean?". When reduced to this kind of simple form, the absurdity of the question becomes clear. Ants and stones have no meaning - they just are, they exist for whatever reason they found themselves in their current locations, and they do what stones or ants do.

The question might be better expressed as "what is the purpose of your existence?, why are we here?, what gives your life purpose? What drives you? What do you live for and strive for? What are you passionate about? What motivates, what thrills you? What gives you peace and satisfaction? What gives your life color, purpose, and significance? What do you spend your time on when you can choose exactly what you would like to do?" These are questions that can actually be answered, and each answer will make sense and be relevant only to the person answering. The "meaning" for each person comes from themselves, regardless of whether they believe they have received a meaning from outside or are answering to a higher calling.

I mostly agree with Paul Kurtz - we create our own meaning/purpose, and in living life we encounter many opportunities to find meaning. However, I myself, and I think most people go through much of their daily living without close inspection of their reasons for living, and purpose for being alive. We do what we do, and we keep doing it day after day. Only occasionally do I become introspective and ask myself questions like this. But the last time I did it I realized I hadn't really made any progress in coming up with a coherent answer. I was always answering the question from scratch. So, this chapter puts it all together in one place.

Camus' raised the question: If life has no purpose, then isn't suicide preferable than living in a world without god and meaning? He posed the question only to show that this would be a coward's way out - suicide is the rejection of freedom. He concluded that in a world without god, we are free to make our own way in the world. He thought that fleeing from the absurdity of reality into illusions, religion or death is not the right way out. Instead of fleeing the absurd meaninglessness of life, we should embrace life passionately. This is the secular way, and it is my way. Here are a couple of quotes that sum up my view and reflect Paul Kurtz's philosophy:

"Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer." - Joseph Campbell

"I believe that I am not responsible for the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of life, but that I am responsible for what I do with the life I've got." - Hermann Hesse

But what about the missing religious sense? Religion can give its practitioners a wonderful feeling of security and comfort. That false sense of security is factually baseless (there is not going to be an afterlife - sorry). But to the faithful, believing the lie feels terrific. Wouldn't a secular philosophy that offered no such security and hope for eternal life be dry and passionless? How can such a life lacking belief rise above somber and sober participation in mere physical processes, in a dreadful daily grind of continued purposeless existence? How can such a supposedly "empty" life compete with the awe, the thrill, and devotion a believer gives to his god? Well, sure, there is not much in the secular worldview that will make you feel quite as great as thinking you will be playing a harp in god's orchestra up in the clouds for eternity. But I found my answer in something I talked about earlier - a naturalistic spirituality. This worldview replaces traditional religious submission and worship with awe, wonder, inspiration, and reverence for the beauty and magnificence of life and of the sheer fact of existence. An exuberant embrace of life, living, loving, and engagement fills the need for connection to something larger than one's self. It requires a 21st century reinterpretation of obsolete religious sentiments, a new language and conceptualization of the immaterial, transcendent aspects of being alive.

As I wrote in a previous entry, the new sense of "spiritual" in this language is not supernatural, but instead connotes the immaterial, indefinable, non-rational aspect of being human. Instead of referring to immaterial spirits or souls, it looks instead to the ineffable, more fundamental aspects of human experience. Lacking belief in spirits, ghosts, and gods does not strip one of the shared human experience of transcendent joy. It only frees them from superstitions, allowing them to see more clearly how the world really is. It truly is lifting the scales from our eyes. We no longer believe that everything we don't understand is due to the actions of some god or the other. Instead, we look forward to being part of a living force that moves gradually, unevenly, but unstoppably, toward gaining that understanding ourselves, through our own efforts and abilities. We draw inspiration from nature, answers from reason and experience, comfort from friends and family, and morality from our own inner voices. We see no need for superstitious belief; it only misleads and divides us.

God as Cultural Adaption

Jonathan Haidt proposes in his book, The Righteous Mind, that the our concepts of divinity and god spring from evolutionary adaptions going back many thousands of years. In his view, religion and religion's gods came about more as a cultural tools to aid in creating community solidarity, stability, and respect for cultural norms. Religious rituals and beliefs were more about forming strong community bonds, and that gods are instruments in that formation.

He sees god as a byproduct of evolution and culture. Religion has always generated a lot of positive "social capital". It is a valuable asset for a community in that it makes it more stable, stronger, and unified. It is an enforcer of law, order, commonly agreed upon standards, and morality, and is a strong cultural binding agent. Modern religion is an expression of our ancient tribal nature. Religion is adaptive in an evolutionary sense. There are a lot of cognitive switches in the brain/mind that presumably evolved as survival adaptations. Some of these switches were co-opted for religion. For example, our "agency detection" capabilities have been with us for tens of thousands of years. Our assumption that some intelligent agent is behind otherwise unexplainable events eventually resulted in the human creation of gods as those causal agents.

In the last 15,000 years, human evolution reached a fever pitch as population grew and civilization took root, that is, as we become cultural creatures living in large groups. Our religious minds and institutions are products of biological evolution, and they became refined as we gathered into societies, and probably helped those societies succeed rather than dissolve. These byproducts, these cognitive/cultural/social adaptions, came under the sway of natural selection. There is not a solid wall between genetic and cultural evolution - instead they should be thought of as two strands which can be viewed together because they really are interwoven. What we do with those religious minds is just as culturally constructed as everything else we do. Large organized religions with beliefs in afterlife are relatively recent innovations when taken in long-term anthropological context. They really only emerged after the development of agriculture in larger scale societies. Once humans started living in chiefdoms and small, stable towns, gods got much more complicated and moralistic. The religious mind is much more than an unmodified byproduct of evolutionary changes that happened 50,000 years ago. It has been strongly shaped by our social evolution.

Haidt echoes Émile Durkheim, an early 20th century sociologist. In his book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Durkheim attempted to identify the social origin and function of religion, as he felt that religion was a source of camaraderie and solidarity. His second purpose was to identify links between certain religions in different cultures, finding a common denominator. He wanted to understand the empirical, social aspect of religion that is common to all religions, which goes beyond the concepts of spirituality and god. He defined religion as:

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.

In this definition, Durkheim avoids references to the supernatural or to god. Durkheim argued that the concept of the supernatural is relatively new, tied to the development of science and the separation of supernatural —that which cannot be rationally explained—from the natural, that which can. Thus, according to Durkheim, for early humans, there was no distinction. Everything one encountered in life was what we moderns would call supernatural.

Super-science, the Singularity, and Post-humanism

With the amazing advances in science, mathematics, computers, communications, genetics, medicine, biology, cognitive science and many other sciences and technologies, some optimists project that in the future - possibly the near future - humans will be able to transcend their physical limitations by extending life indefinitely, even "uploading" their consciousnesses into some future form of a computer network. Either of these would grant us a form of "god-like" immortality. The idea behind this is at some point in the future a technological "singularity" will occur, radically changing what it even means to be human. "Trans-humanists" speculate that these technological advances will begin an exponential growth phase, intersecting the lives of some people alive today, enabling them to live with extraordinary powers, and to live forever. The singularity is the moment when this intersection occurs.

The singularity, the conversion of human beings into trans-humans, and finally our arrival at a "post-human" future has become a near religion to those who embrace its predictions - thus the inclusion of the Singularity into this discussion of god. In this utopian age of super-science, medical advances will allow indefinite life extension, enabling some people to live decades longer, if not forever. It will be possible to create artificial life, grow new organs or entire new bodies, cure all disease (including aging), explain and recreate consciousness, understand the origin of the universe, spread our influence throughout the galaxy, and know how the universe will end. In this view, mankind, itself will have the potential to become a race of gods. In fact, the very definition of what it means to be human may be altered. A race of post-humans would emerge - the product of targeted genetic modification, biological enhancements, and integration with man-made technology. This hypothetical future being will be one "whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards." In fact, such beings might appear as gods by some definitions of the word - they would possess immortality, utilize vast amounts of energy, be able to create life, create and manipulate matter, and have access to immense amounts of information. A "post-human god" would no longer be confined to the parameters of human nature. He might grow physically and mentally so powerful as to appear god-like by current human standards.

Not all who expect the singularity to arrive do so with optimism and hope. Some regard it in just the opposite way - as an existential threat to humanity, as armageddon. Instead of a leap forward in what it means to be human, it might instead extinguish humanity by initiating a "hard takeoff" of a strong artificial intelligence in the form of a so-called "paperclip maximizer" (a superintelligent AI so powerful that the outcome for the world overwhelmingly depends on its goals, and little else. A paperclip maximizer efficiently converts the universe into something that is, from a human perspective, completely arbitrary and worthless, i.e., paperclips). This concept illustrates how AIs that haven't been specifically programmed to be benevolent to humans are basically as dangerous as if they were explicitly malicious. So, one of the conceptual problems people are working on is this -- if you accept that a technological singularity is inevitable, can we pre-empt the process in such a way to ensure that the AI is "friendly" and values life, in particular, our lives?

The origin of concept of the Singularity came from many scientists and futurists - John Von Neumann, Alan Turing, Werner Vinge, and Ray Kurzweil, among them. Either directly or indirectly, they each anticipated the coming singularity - the point at which machine intelligence outstrips human intelligence, and / or humans and machines merge. This is all premised on the assumptions that consciousness and intelligence are not mystical things, and that they can be created and reproduced outside of human brains. Vinge thought, along with Kurtzweil, that within just a few decades machines will achieve super-intelligence, far surpassing that of humans and become self-replicating and self-improving - each machine generation capable of producing even more capable and intelligent machines as did the "Computer Tyrants of Colu" when they created the humanoid super-computer called Brainiac (Superman #167, 1964). Yes, it can happen in comics - but that is not necessarily a prediction for our own future.

Uploading the mind

A concept that is integral to the singularity is the envisioned future ability to "upload the mind" to some sort of supercomputer. The assumption is that once we understand the brain well enough, we will be able to scan the contents of the brain / mind / consciousness and transfer it into a machine where the individual's sense of its continuity will be preserved, and possibly be able to create an artificial body to house this new representation of consciousness. Another variant of this is that we learn how to create an elaborate "Matrix-like" virtual paradise where we sleep in suspended animation while a program generates a virtual reality for us. These predictions are not generally accepted as realistic by people involved in developing the technologies that one assumes would be required for this science fiction future (computer science, medicine, microelectronics, neuroscience, etc). At best it is science fiction. We are very far from understanding the brain and the mind, having just scratched the surface in neuro/cognitive science. However, many people confidently compare the human cognitive apparatus to a very advanced computer and/or software system. Although the brain does process information, it does much, much more. To conceive of it as a super-complex computer system, or as being reducible to a computer system is an enormous, and unjustified, leap. It is a leap that owes much to where we happen to find ourselves today, in the microprocessor-dominated 21st century. It reflects the technical biases we have grown accustomed to in the last half century.

This is not the first time that futurists have sought technological metaphors to describe the brain. Aristotle, and later Avicenna, conceived of the mind as a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) on which education and experience were written. Galen, and later Descartes compared the brain to a pneumatic or hydraulic system, inspired by the advanced plumbing systems coming into being during their respective lifetimes. Later, during the industrial revolution, machine-based metaphors came into vogue. The human brain was compared to a complex machine, or an extrapolation of clockwork mechanisms composed of gears, pulleys, gimbals, springs, and cogs. During the early 20th century, complex telephone switching systems, representing the apex of electro-mechanical technology, served as the new model of the brain. Today, with our advanced information processing and telecommunication technologies, we tend to envision the brain / mind as a computer / software / communications system, because that set of technologies represents several of our current peak technical achievements. But the brain / body and the mind they generate, are almost certainly not the equivalent of a computer / software system, any more than a human leg is the same as an automobile wheel, or the human digestive system is a chemical plant. They are analogous, and may solve similar problems but are not one-for-one substitutable - all of the metaphors eventually break down. No doubt the future will hold new and interesting metaphors we will use to make sense of the mind.

Consciousness, the thing that makes life meaningful for us, probably arises in the brain and the brain's interaction with the body, and the body's interaction with the environment. The whole brain / body / mind system contributes to the sense of consciousness. The belief that consciousness will arise spontaneously in machines and that it will eventually emerge in them through a spontaneous runaway positive feedback loop is really pure speculation. There is no precedent for it, and no evidence that it is even possible. A popular notion in science fiction is that intelligence self-organizes and consciousness spontaneously emerges out of a sufficiently powerful computer, as it did in SkyNet in the movie, Terminator. But this scenario is highly unlikely. The most recent findings in neuroscience indicate that consciousness is a specific function of "thinking" systems, not just a natural outcome of overall systemic complexity - we don't see incipient consciousness in highly complex systems today such as the internet, or electric power grids, or the Internal Revenue tax code. Complexity and consciousness are not necessarily always correlated, nor causally related.

The idea that the mind, and its connection to the brain, is all that matters for the generation of consciousness is an assertion for which there is no evidence. The nervous system which permeates the entire body certainly contributes much to the experience we think of as consciousness. A disconnected brain (a "brain in a jar") without a body would achieve the ultimate in sensory deprivation, and would likely go mad quite rapidly. There is no mind / body split. This Cartesian bias is a lovely philosophical speculation for which no empirical evidence exists - in fact, all the evidence goes against it. The brain / body / mind is a continuous, inter-related, and intimately connected system. The idea that you can upload the contents of your brain into some sort of artificial body or a computer system implicitly reflects a Cartesian philosophical outlook - that there is a mind, and separate from that is the (disposable) physical body and brain. All of modern biological and neurological science is in the process of refuting this philosophy, and is establishing that both the body and the brain are integral to consciousness. The brain and the sensory/motor nervous system are a single, but distributed, system. Amputating the brain, and further, extracting the mind from the brain and storing its contents somewhere leaves the entire sensory and motor apparatus out. We are our bodies as much as we are our brains.

However, if we expand the meaning of "upload the mind" to incorporate any upward transfer of information from a human mind to a permanent medium, storage area, or processing system, well, we have been doing that since the invention of cave painting. The technologies available today for the upload and transfer of human knowledge to non-human destinations have expanded greatly and now include regular conversation, writing, digital video cameras, email, MRI's, twitter and facebook. But no real progress has been made in terms of recreating or reflecting an existing sentient being inside a machine.

Brain as computer

A popular view in the last few decades is that the brain is some sort of digital computer and the mind is a software program that runs on that machine. The idea that we will be able to upload consciousness into another type of machine, extracting the software from our three pound, flesh-and-blood brain, and "porting" it to another type of computer makes a tremendous assumption that we really have no basis for believing. It assumes a "backward compatible" computer system can be built that will run the software of our minds. Even granting that the mind is software or software-like, it may be that it can only run in the machine called the brain in which it evolved. Certainly they are highly interdependent, the brain and mind. And that extra element - consciousness - undoubtedly relies on the brain structure, and on the mind housed in the brain, in countless ways. Consciousness and brain / mind structure evolved together ever since creatures with brains came into existence. The brain may be a machine, but whether the brain is a computer is a completely different issue. It almost certainly is not a computer in the sense that we think of computers.

Cyborgs

Related to the singularity theme is the hope of an eventual union of human and machine in what would best be described as cyborg technology - a technology which creates beings that are biological and artificial hybrids, containing biological, robotic, electronic, and mechanical parts. For several decades we have seen machine implants in human bodies - heart valves and stints, cochlear implants, insulin pumps, artificial eye lenses, advanced prosthetic limbs, titanium hip replacements, hearing aids, cosmetic implants of all sort, pace-makers, and even artificial hearts. Experimental neural implants have been developed to treat blindness, epilepsy, and Alzheimer's disease. Experimental "direct neural interfaces" exist which connect the brain's motor cortex to external robotic devices, and those devices are able to transmit tactile, proprioceptive, and temperature information back to the parts of the brain which can process that information. With future refinements and innovations in nano-technology, genetic engineering, pharmacology, neuroscience, information technology, material science, surgical techniques, and medicine, the trend is toward more complex and useful synthetic augmentation of human beings. The logical conclusion, if the trend continues, is full integration of man and machine at the physical level.

However, even without the envisioned physical integration, human society has already become totally dependent on existing man-machine collaboration. Beginning thousands of years ago with the invention of the lever, wheel, and inclined plane, moving through the development of steam engines, electrical power, telephones, and satellites, human beings and all of human culture have evolved a to a point of complete dependence and integration with our machinery. Life without our artificial creations would takes us back to a hunter / gatherer past. The next step - physical integration - is just the next logical progression, not a radical departure. It is already happening.

New Thought movement

"New Thought" is a spiritual movement which developed in the United States during the late 19th century which emphasized metaphysical and mystical/spiritual beliefs. It single-handedly helped convert the term "metaphysics" from an arcane and respected philosophical discipline to a grab-bag of feel-good and trendy concepts.

This school of thought consists of a loosely allied group of religious denominations, secular organizations, authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of beliefs concerning the effects of positive thinking, the "law of attraction", mystical healing, "life force", creative visualization, affirmations, karma, energy fields (not the physics kind, but the mystical kind), and the development of personal power. It promotes the ideas that "infinite intelligence", AKA "god", is ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, all sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect. Prayer and meditation are thought to lead to spiritual and physical healing through a type of spiritual mechanism.

In general, modern day adherents of New Thought believe that their interpretation of "god" or "infinite intelligence" is "supreme, universal, and everlasting", that divinity dwells within each person, that all people are spiritual beings, that "the highest spiritual principle is loving one another unconditionally . . . and teaching and healing one another", and that "our mental states are carried forward into manifestation and become our experience in daily living".

The three major religious denominations within the New Thought movement are Religious Science, Unity Church and the Church of Divine Science. Some New Thought adherents also subscribe to a monistic belief that spirit or consciousness is the sole universal substance and that all physical processes and events are either illusions, or are condensations of pure intelligence and consciousness into material form. Thus sickness is just a degenerate manifestation of an unhealthy spirit, implying that if the spirit is healed, the sickness will vanish. In any case, according to their view, the material world is only a pale shadow of the spiritual one. These movements all share the common ideal that one's thoughts and your feelings create one's life.

Modern manifestations of New Thought can be found in "The Law of Attraction", "The Secret", and "A Course in Miracles".

God of the Gaps

There are aspects of life for which no explanations can be found in science, economics, history, sociology, or other areas of empirically or rationally obtained human knowledge. For many of those experiences and phenomena, the default explanatory fallback is that god is responsible. Whether the issue is the origin of life, what happened "before the big bang", the question of life after death, or how consciousness arises, when mankind has not discovered answers, the answers get ascribed to the higher power, or sometimes to a more traditional, personal and anthropomorphic god. The god of the gaps argument is known as an "argument from ignorance" ("because we don't know, then we do know"). Or as Stephen Colbert reported about Bill O'Reilly on his TV show, "Like all great theologies, Bill's can be boiled down to one sentence: There must be a god, ... because I don't know how things work".

It is a common trap that is very easy to fall into. For many people it is uncomfortable to be faced with a situation for which there is no answer - a more psychologically satisfying position is to believe that there is an answer, but that answer is known only to god. Unfortunately for god, the number of things that he is responsible for has been shrinking for centuries, and the pace picked up even faster beginning with the "Age of Reason" in the 17th century (thanks to thinkers such as Galileo, Locke, Newton, Spinoza, and others). He is now seriously underemployed. He no longer causes stars to remain fixed in the sky, the creation of planets, earthquakes (or lack thereof), good and/or bad weather, health and disease, sunrise/sunset, rainbows, tides, the change of seasons, plagues or cures for plagues, victory and defeat in battle, or the evolution of living creatures into separate species. Evolutionary biology and anthropology indicate that morality, altruism, heroism, and other noble and subtle human virtues, as well as the less noble ones, probably have primitive correlates in other species. Humans have found naturalistic explanations for these formerly mysterious processes that used to be attributable to god. The trend towards taking god out of the causal chain continues with no sign of abatement. For the last few centuries those who relied on god as the explanation for physical phenomena have experienced a long and steady string of disappointments. Unfortunately for them, this is likely to continue.

God is Love

Carl Sagan addressed this very clearly in his book, Varieties of Scientific Experience, a compendium of his 1985 Gifford lectures. When challenged by a questioner with the assertion, "in reality He is there. God is love", Sagan replied "Well, if we say that the definition of God is reality, or the definition of God is love, I have no quarrel with the existence of reality or the existence of love. In fact, I’m in favor of both of them. However, it does not follow that God defined in that way has anything to do with the creation of the world or of any events in human history. It does not follow that there’s anything that is omnipotent or omniscient and so on about God defined in such a manner. So all I’m saying is, we must look at the logical consistency of the various definitions. If you say God is love, clearly love exists in the world. But love is not the only thing that exists in the world. The idea that love dominates everything else, I deeply hope is true, but there are arguments that can very well be proposed, from a mere glance at the daily newspapers, to suggest that love is not in the ascendant in contemporary political affairs. And I don’t see that it helps to say, forgive me, that God is love, because there are all those other definitions of God, that mean quite different things. If we muddle up all the definitions of God, then it’s very confusing what’s being talked about. There is a great opportunity for error in that case. So my proposal is that we call reality “reality,” that we call love “love,” and not call either of them God, which has, while an enormous number of other meanings, not exactly those meanings."

So, to assert that "god is love" is rather arbitrary. Why not say "god is beauty" or "god is hate" or "god is pizza". There is no particular reason to equate the term "god" and "love" above any other associations.